Today the Tor Project is launching the Run a Tor Bridge campaign. Participants are invited to contribute and help censored users by running a Tor bridge. You can find more details below, including our special reward kits for participants. The campaign will run from November 17 to January 7, 2022. Join us and help censored users!
A colour revolution uses legitimate griefs people have with their government to co-opt the movement and promote regime change instead for foreign interests that fund the revolution.
For example a colour revolution is currently attempted in Cuba by mobilising the diaspora who, in turn, mobilises the Cuban population. The embargo is hitting Cuba really bad (cost 60 billion dollars since 1960) and this prevents them from having much-needed medical supplies (especially against covid), cheaper internet access or just more consumer goods.
That’s a legitimate grief that has led to some unrest sometimes – even if the embargo is not Cuba’s fault and is literally only supported by the USA and Israel. But it’s being weaponised by the United States and they’re funding protests in Cuba so they can point and say “look, people don’t want the communist party in charge! They’re protesting for more freedoms!”. What was originally “we’re tired of not having these simple things, please give us them and we will stop picketing” now has turned into “we will topple the government and throw molotov cocktails at the police”.
The pattern of a colour revolution is: foreign funding -> local “leaders” -> protesting masses. Foreign powers start funding and even sometimes training people who align with their interests and they put them to work for co-opting protests to promote regime change. Sometimes the people that are funded are not really leaders and locals didn’t even know them until they suddenly took an interest. Sometimes protests are started by bought locals. The common point is that they’re using legitimate unrest to ask for something else entirely.
Colour revolutions were and still are a favourite of the CIA because you can’t really trace it back to them (not in time at least) and all it takes them is money and meeting with locals. It also creates a ton of support at home because the protestors want “freedom”, and who doesn’t want freedom? What kind of monster is stopping their people from wanting freedom? And if the targeted government retaliates against the protestors in any way, you can also say “look they’re putting down the protests, these people just want democracy why is the government so afraid of giving it to them?”. But they don’t want democracy, they want regime change. They want to install a neoliberal government that will let their natural resources be exported by American companies.
So the CIA funds loyal people and if the protest doesn’t work out, they were never there. That’s the genius of it. All you have are receipts through front companies (because the leaders are paid for mobilising people against the government) and it’s the protest leaders that get arrested, not the American agents. This means you can try again with another patsy if your fall guy gets busted.
That blog post doesn’t elaborate on the color revolution terminology or explain what if anything about the Hong Kong resistance is non organic or sponsored.
For whatever reason, the history of posts on Lemmy about protonmail being bad is incredibly scatterbrained, don’t clearly explain themselves, and to link to things that don’t clearly elaborate on the the points that are making.
It’s a stunning level of short attention span communication that would only make sense to a friend who is sitting next to you and watching what you were browsing, which is not context that anyone has here.
You can see recurring countries like China, Belarus, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Macedonia, Russia, Iran (Green movement), Moldova, Ukraine, Iraq (yes, the U.S. invasion was also called the Purple Revolution, i.e. bringing of democracy to the country, blah, blah…)
What is a “color revolution”? Can you explain what you mean?
A colour revolution uses legitimate griefs people have with their government to co-opt the movement and promote regime change instead for foreign interests that fund the revolution.
For example a colour revolution is currently attempted in Cuba by mobilising the diaspora who, in turn, mobilises the Cuban population. The embargo is hitting Cuba really bad (cost 60 billion dollars since 1960) and this prevents them from having much-needed medical supplies (especially against covid), cheaper internet access or just more consumer goods.
That’s a legitimate grief that has led to some unrest sometimes – even if the embargo is not Cuba’s fault and is literally only supported by the USA and Israel. But it’s being weaponised by the United States and they’re funding protests in Cuba so they can point and say “look, people don’t want the communist party in charge! They’re protesting for more freedoms!”. What was originally “we’re tired of not having these simple things, please give us them and we will stop picketing” now has turned into “we will topple the government and throw molotov cocktails at the police”.
The pattern of a colour revolution is: foreign funding -> local “leaders” -> protesting masses. Foreign powers start funding and even sometimes training people who align with their interests and they put them to work for co-opting protests to promote regime change. Sometimes the people that are funded are not really leaders and locals didn’t even know them until they suddenly took an interest. Sometimes protests are started by bought locals. The common point is that they’re using legitimate unrest to ask for something else entirely.
Colour revolutions were and still are a favourite of the CIA because you can’t really trace it back to them (not in time at least) and all it takes them is money and meeting with locals. It also creates a ton of support at home because the protestors want “freedom”, and who doesn’t want freedom? What kind of monster is stopping their people from wanting freedom? And if the targeted government retaliates against the protestors in any way, you can also say “look they’re putting down the protests, these people just want democracy why is the government so afraid of giving it to them?”. But they don’t want democracy, they want regime change. They want to install a neoliberal government that will let their natural resources be exported by American companies.
So the CIA funds loyal people and if the protest doesn’t work out, they were never there. That’s the genius of it. All you have are receipts through front companies (because the leaders are paid for mobilising people against the government) and it’s the protest leaders that get arrested, not the American agents. This means you can try again with another patsy if your fall guy gets busted.
Thank you for the detailed explanation!
See for example https://protonvpn.com/blog/hong-kong-security-law/
In short, a color revolution is a non-organic, sponsored one.
That blog post doesn’t elaborate on the color revolution terminology or explain what if anything about the Hong Kong resistance is non organic or sponsored.
For whatever reason, the history of posts on Lemmy about protonmail being bad is incredibly scatterbrained, don’t clearly explain themselves, and to link to things that don’t clearly elaborate on the the points that are making.
It’s a stunning level of short attention span communication that would only make sense to a friend who is sitting next to you and watching what you were browsing, which is not context that anyone has here.
Look, even I do not like ProtonMail as far as activist use goes. It is terrible for anything beyond being a GMail/Outlook replacement.
Some actual evidence I can provide for ProtonMail having lots of issues:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/05/how-protonmail-lost-the-public-trust-it-needs-to-do-business.html
https://github.com/ProtonMail/WebClient/issues/242
https://steigerlegal.ch/2021/08/02/protonmail-daten-usa/
https://secoursrouge.org/france-suisse-securite-it-protonmail-a-communique-a-la-police-ladresse-ip-de-militant·es-anti-gentrification/
https://nitter.snopyta.org/brokep/status/1453765410122354698#m
https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/07/protonmail_hands_user_ip_address_police/
Thank you, these are better, and perhaps a thread can be started with something like this instead.
The blog doesn’t explain it, because it’s an example of it. All against states the U.S. opposes in one capacity, or other, providing finances and training to the opposition. That’s why it’s non-organic.
You can see recurring countries like China, Belarus, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Macedonia, Russia, Iran (Green movement), Moldova, Ukraine, Iraq (yes, the U.S. invasion was also called the Purple Revolution, i.e. bringing of democracy to the country, blah, blah…)